where we're going, we'll need roads

I can't support any kind of roads, they are completely impractical on the scale of PA for the reasons already brought forward and more.

Mike

Of a large army (yet not one so large as to exceed the road's capacity) along a route you control over a distance long enough to matter and far enough into the game that roads could feasibly have been constructed? Not so much.

There is a downside if time and money are spend implementing a feature that's useless over one that's actually good. Programmers are not free, citizen, and roads increase the cost of pathfinding considerably.

I think I can say with a lot of confidence that if it were going to be Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe, we'd know about it.

Not even for modding?

I'd like to build DOOMTRAINS.

Roads aren't likely to be part of the game. However, TA had the concept of "reclaiming" things like trees which removed an impedance.

I don't see roads as being worth adding. But perhaps make a small radius around a built structure give a speed bonus due to being flat,smooth and solid. Since I can imagine a base would be clustered close together this would make transit within the base more efficient.

Id imagine if a building is being constructed by nanites then an brutal efficient AI would want to stabilize the terrain in a small area around it to guarantee structural integrity. I am not suggesting that our commander begin to run at 200mph but a tiny boost would be fine imo

It's probably not worth the effort responding since, from this response, you've made it clear you can't wrap your head around myself not requesting roads specifically.

What have you said to prove it's a useless idea? You've given one poor implementation given in warcraft. Here's an example of where it's done well: StarCraft 2

I'm not sure how having a stationary speed buff turns he game into "Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe". By your logic, it seems having any form of dedicated transport unit/building turns this game into "Open Transport Tycoon Deluxe".

Anything that's vaguely like a road will have exactly the same problem, so claiming your rose-by-another-name will smell sweeter is dishonest.

I've said several times that it will be of minor utility and cost money to implement, you've ignored my point repeatedly. Also look at this thread. You're not getting a lot of support from other posters, who mostly disagree with the idea. Saying "StarCraft 2 did it" really isn't helping either, since StarCraft is the exact opposite of the type of game Uber want from PA.

You just used the word "logic" without actually using any logic. A point you repeatedly ignore: transports are nothing like roads, or "stationary speed buff", if you want to create a politically correct term for a road which doesn't use the word "road", because a transport can go somewhere which you haven't already held long enough to build a building at. A game logistics-heavy enough that it's worth building things to increase movement speed between areas under your control is not a game that plays like Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander. The benefit of your Stationary Speed Buff which Totally isn't a Road, Honest is a few seconds faster response time under a few specific situations when you've already been outmanoeuvred. That's never going to stack up against actually having more resources or more units with which to fight.

Rather than roads, we should think a level higher about what we're really asking.

Regardless of how you implement it, you want units to be able to move from A to B by utilizing some form of mass transport to speed up their transit. So why don't we just ask for the capability to designate routes, and have units use those routes automatically when given a move order?

I mean, a 'road' could be a maglev train, it could be a terrain boost, it could be a ski-lift for k-bots, a short range matter transmitter, air transports, sea transports, or a rail gun that fires units into a cradle on the other side of the planet. However it ends up, I'd like a robust system for transporting units that involves as little player input as possible to set up and maintain, and is automatically used by units to move themselves from point A to B.

I like the way this one thinks.

Wasn't this actually in Supcom? I'm certain you could set two transit points with an air transport then factory waypoints to one of the transits points and they would automatically embark, be ferried to a destination, disembark and the transport would fly back. Was a key point in building armies over long distance.
Only problem I had is this automatic way ended up with the transports being impatient and only allowing about 3 people to board before they flew off, which was bloody annoying.

Support for trains would allow for interesting options. Think of putting a long range gun on tracks, moving it within range of the enemy base, and as it destroys stuff you could move it closer.

We've got tanks the size of houses and giant mechs who knock down the trees in a forest when they walk.

I don't really think that roads are necessary.

Would there be any use in a mobile teleport vehicle? Imagine a slow-moving vehicle too big to be transported that can deploy anywhere it can drive to (probably amphibious, possibly able to traverse lava).

Any unit sent into a corresponding building would appear out of the teleport vehicle. A useful but risky way to colonise far parts of the map? A handy way to send reinforcements to the front line? Or superfluous and/or imbalanced?

I'm actually kind of okay without roads or bridges in the context of TA/SC/PA games. It never really bothered me that these weren't there.

My reasoning is simple. We're talking about an endless war. These guys aren't interested in building cities, they're just trying to blow up the other guy. Being dependent on roads is just one more weakness. If your enemy uses predictable routes to get from place to place, you can take advantage of that. Why not just build better vehicles and bots that don't need roads and bridges to get around?

I guess to be fair I should at least consider the other angle. On earth historically roads has been a big strategic advantage. Being able to move units is useful. Maybe that could still be useful and relevant even with perfectly refined and optimized machines of war. Or maybe they move fast enough without this. Building roads is expensive after all, maybe it's just more efficient to build more units, cannons, aircraft, etc.

So there's my thoughts. I think that the machines don't build roads or bridges, because they only use the most efficient stuff. They've recognized that with sufficiently advanced technology, roads become irrelevant, a waste of resources, and possibly even a liability. So they don't build them.

You may disagree, that is of course your right.